So, what is Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s conflict-of-interest anyway?

In an attempt to get to the heart of the matter I looked up the definition of conflict-of-interest on duhaime.org legal resource. According to them, a conflict-of-interest is defined as:

“A personal interest that conflicts with a public or fiduciary interest.” 

In other words, if then-Councilor Rob Ford had a conflict-of-interest, Rob Ford had to have had a personal interest that would have interfered with the public responsibilities he was sworn to uphold, to the City of Toronto and the constituents of Ward 2. 

With this definition in mind, let’s examine this case step-by-step from the beginning. It all started when Ford solicited donations on official letterhead for the Rob Ford Football Charity, which resulted in $3,100 being received by the charity. The first problem for his accusers is that the money solicited came from private not government sources. Second, the money flowed to a charity, not to him. It’s hard to see what personal interest, besides the benign one of charity, this benefited. Third, it is hard to see how the interests of the Rob Ford Football Charity would conflict with the interests of the City or Ford’s voters.

Then there is the matter of him soliciting funds using his official Council stationary. The problem, of course, is not the cost of the stationary, which is trivial. The problem with using the stationary is presumably that he might have been using the powers of his office to ‘bully’ individuals into giving donations that they otherwise would have foregone. Given that he was a high-profile councilor and that the charity was named after him, it is hard to see how the deciding factor in the mind of the donor was the letterhead flagging Rob Ford as a councilor. Does the Integrity Commissioner believe that those donors would have been oblivious to Ford’s elected position without seeing the letterhead?

I agree that as a general principle elected officials shouldn’t use official letterhead for personal matters, but I don’t see what harm this caused the City’s interest in this particular case.

Keep in mind we are talking about the councilor who regularly refused to charge his office expenses to the city (costing him roughly $30K or more per year) and reportedly gave over $50K of his own money to the same charity.

Second, we have the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling. Given:

a) the benign nature of Rob Ford’s transgression, and

b) the fact that the ‘payback’ really constituted a fine, given that the donations never flowed to him in the first place,

I think an impartial observer might be forgiven for believing that the Integrity Commissioner over-reached in this decision. 

Third, we have the vote in the council where he voted on the matter of overturning the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling. Again, on general principles, I agree that councilors should not be allowed vote on matters that affect them personally, but given the fact that there doesn’t appear to be any harm done by the originating act, I don’t see what harm this particular vote of his did. An interesting question I have not found an answer to in any newspaper account is, did Rob Ford’s vote affect the outcome of the motion? In other words, would the outcome of the motion have been a tie without Ford’s vote? I don’t know the answer to this question, but I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if it had, the papers would have highlighted this significant fact. Therefore, it is highly likely that the motion would have passed without Ford’s personal vote, perhaps because most councilors had come to the same opinion on the Integrity Commissioner’s verdict as I have.

In summary, Rob Ford may be guilty of several procedural offences designed to prevent conflicts-of-interest. However, given that no private interests can be found that are in conflict with Ford’s public interest, who cares?

I am a strong believer that laws should be interpreted through the filter of common sense. For instance, when the  MPP’s in Queen’s park voted to pass into law the “automatic removal from office” clause in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, what did they have in mind? people selling favours such as zoning exemptions for campaign contributions, or people raising money for charity using city stationary?

When we prosecute people for procedural matters when the crimes the procedures are designed to prevent never occurred in the first place, the justice system is engaging in tyrannical behaviour.

Comments

[Ted]

I agree that this is a minor snafu blown out of proportion and, as much as I would love to see our part-time mayor gone, it would be a bigger travesty for it to occur this way. All of his other examples of breaking the law were bigger and more significant than this breaking of the law.

And it is breaking the law, however, minor. You have a few of your underlying facts wrong.

First of all, the soliciting donations was not a conflict of interest. It was a direct breach of the Code of Conduct of City Hall. Dumb or not, over-reaching or not, Councillors are specifically told not to use there letterhead for anything but City business.

Second, given the above, it was a clear breach of the Code of Conduct. Period. Ford should have said "oops, my bad, sorry" and moved on. But he had to escalate.

Third, the Integrity Commissioners - like Integrity Commissioners everywhere at every level of government - is given very limited powers of remedy, i.e. she doesn't have a lot of ability to tailor the punishment to fit the crime. That is the fault of the City and the mandate they give her. She made considerable effort to get Ford to back down, including several meetings (I'm told) and 6 public letters (available for all to read). Ford still did nothing. So she did the only thing she could in the face of someone completely ignoring her role.

Fourth, City Council (under Miller) voted to require Ford to comply with the Integrity Commissioner's letters. In this, I think Ford is justified in saying they over-reached their authority because I don't think they passed the motion correctly or had the power to fine one of their own. So the motion was dumb, partisan and without force. And THAT should have been Ford's basis for attack.

Fifth, instead, he got his cronies to re-vote that motion instead when he became mayor. This all goes away if they simply vote that the motion is withdrawn because it was wrong. It all goes away if Ford admits a simple, small "whoopsey".

Sixth, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act has a definition of conflict of interest which is not quite the same as the definition you provide, but it is close. Taking a strict reading, I don't see how voting on a resolution about your own punishment can be described in any way but a conflict of interest. That one is just such a brain dead argument that it raises more questions about Ford than all of the other partisan stuff thrown at him. I mean, come one! Not only that, but it is expressly in the conflict of interest manuals he admitted he never bothered to read and was explained at the information sessions for councillors he admitted he never bothered to attend. Again, though, Ford bullys ahead: instead of saying whoops again, my bad, ending this, he doubles down.

Seventh, the Act does not give the court much leeway. If he was in conflict - and he clearly was - then they must can him. It's sort of like a mandatory minimum sentence, if you will (funny how now that's a bad thing). However, there is an out: if the judge finds him to be in conflict inadvertently (which he wasn't) or in error of judgement (which he clearly was). But the judge would have to ignore his own testimony in which he is stupidly unrepentent in any tiny bit for any single little thing he's done.

I hope the judge gives him a stern reprimand for being such an idiot but ignores his own testimony and finds it to be an error of judgement to avoid the bigger travesty of taking away a legitimate election result.

Ford's conduct with this tiny piffle of an issue was bullheaded but not ultimately grievous, but his testimony really does show him to be a very dumb and petty person, quite unfit for high office. I don't have any affection for the petty anti-democratic activists bringing this claim, but all of this could have been avoided.

Sometimes doing the right and smart thing means doing the right and smart thing.

[Cincinnatus]

Thank you for your informative comment.

And yes, I do agree that Rob Ford has handled this matter terribly from the get-go, being in effect his enemies' best ally.

[social enterprise]

Thank you for your informative comment.

And yes, I do agree that Rob Ford has handled this matter terribly from the get-go, being in effect his enemies' best ally.